What do people think of the theory that the playing conditions in Aus indicate that England will have a better time down under than they did here in old Blighty?
And there is some emprical evidence for this - the Bradman-esq performance of Cook in the last series for instance.
It has been mentioned (and seized on by me) that Cook, Trott, KP, and probably Root will all prefer batting down under than here. KP averages 56 in Austrlia after 2 tours and seems to treat Adelaide like the easy setting on a Playstation game.
This is compounded by the fact that England's bowlers (for my money) have more natural variation, meaning that although they will be forced to toil some long sessions, they are more likely to get the breakthroughs and tumble wickets on top of each other. For instance, Siddle is a respectable, dilligent test-bowler, but doesn't have extreme pace, and lacks the movement of both Broad and Anderson. Swann is the best offie in the world, but down under will be a bit-part player. So what does the futire then hold for Nathan Lyons? Not much that I can see.
When I look at these things, ist doesn't surprise me too much that Australia feel complled to turn to Mitch Johnson - and lo and behold, he has just but in an excellent ODI performance to remind people he can sometimes keep the ball on the crease. For 1 test match in 5, Mitch's genuine pace and slinger action will defeat the placid batting conditions and knock England over when all about him are just modestly toiling. The other 4 matches however are a bit of a problem.
All things being equal, and even putting aside my bias, I can't see Australia doing much better in their own backyard than they did here. I'm going to lump for another 3-1 England.
England will win in Adelaide and Sydney, and one other venue.